Conversing Across the Divide: A Meeting Among Different Viewpoints
Introducing the Participants
One Diner: Peter, 34, London
Occupation Ex- government employee, currently a student focusing on public health
Voting record Supported Green last time (and a member of the political group); formerly Labour Party. Identifies as “left, and globalist instead of nationalist”
Interesting fact A sketch of a tea cup he did as a kid was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland
Other Participant: Akshat, 43, Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the infrastructure industry
Voting record Originally from India, he has lived in the United Kingdom for five years, and voted the Conservative Party. Identifies as “slightly moderate right”
Amuse bouche He self-learned to read and write the Urdu language. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing”
For starters
The first participant Over the last 20 years, I have resided and been employed in Qatar, South Korea, the United States. The topics Peter and I talked about are UK-centric, but they are also global, because people's lives more or less follows the same curve across the world. I was expecting a staunch liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I drank beer, he opted for mojitos.
The second participant We split starters – seafood rolls, dumplings, radish cakes with sprouts, which were superb. I was a little nervous, as I believe Akshat was. Was he going to attack me for being a snowflake? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and the Iberian Peninsula. We bonded over our affection for the capital.
Key disagreements
The first participant I look at immigration similar to sprinkling salt to a dish. With a small amount, the dish tastes wonderful. Use too little or too much and the meal is insipid or overly seasoned.
Peter Akshat had a metaphor about salt. It would be a funny place to exist if the state was choosing some preferred demographic of the nation.
The first participant There are, sadly, individuals fleeing persecution, but a lot of migrants coming to the United Kingdom are economic migrants who do not necessarily contribute much and can weigh on the welfare system. No one compels you to go to a different nation for opportunity, so you should only go if you are able to support yourself and your family.
The second participant We became confused with some of the facts. I don’t think it’s like you come over and are employed and then following a half-decade you obtain permanent citizenship. Nothing is automatic. It’s been a hostile environment since Theresa May, visa fees are really high, you pay an NHS surcharge, access to benefits is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And regarding the new policies, whereby family reunification is restricted, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we don’t want you. I think we have to have a degree of humanity.
Common ground
Akshat Peter questions unregulated markets. I am, too, but simultaneously, wealth creation helps communities and should be encouraged.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that some parts of the community – government, the media – benefit from creating conflict. We discovered shared understanding in basic principles and ethics.
Dessert and debate
The first participant Peter believes that because the United Kingdom benefitted from the colonial era, it should pay compensation to those countries. I simply think: you cannot judge history with present day morality; eras vary, current society were not responsible of events decades or a century ago. Suppose the UK had to compensate the Indian nation, it would be a huge amount of money. Is Britain able to manage that? No.
Peter In the past, I don’t think adequate reflection occurred with colonial history. As an instance, when I first moved to the UK, people weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the role that imperial rule contributed to it. My view is decolonization is not merely about issuing payments, it ought to involve looking at past errors and where we should be now.
Final thoughts
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I appreciate his worries. I converse with people every day with opinions are opposite to mine. The goal is uniting people to the common understanding, in order that everyone can work towards the improvement of society.
Peter We remained for 150 minutes. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank some sweet Japanese wine. I didn’t persuade him of anything, but we both enjoyed the meal, so we might become more receptive to engaging in dialogues with others in future.
